Suppr超能文献

异基因干细胞移植后的感染性并发症:减低强度预处理方案与清髓性预处理方案的比较

Infectious complications following allogeneic stem cell transplantation: reduced-intensity vs. myeloablative conditioning regimens.

作者信息

Kim S-H, Kee S Y, Lee D-G, Choi S-M, Park S H, Kwon J-C, Eom K-S, Kim Y-J, Kim H-J, Lee S, Min C-K, Kim D-W, Choi J-H, Yoo J-H, Lee J-W, Min W-S

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Transpl Infect Dis. 2013 Feb;15(1):49-59. doi: 10.1111/tid.12003. Epub 2012 Sep 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT), reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) is known for producing less regimen-related toxicity. However, whether or not RIC reduces the risk for infection and infection-related mortality (IRM) remains controversial.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed infectious episodes and IRMs after allo-SCTs by time period and by the intensity of the conditioning regimen (RIC [n = 81] vs. myeloablative conditioning, MAC [n = 150]).

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of any kind of infection was lower in the RIC group through the entire period (72% vs. 87%; P = 0.007). The onset of infections was deferred in the RIC group as compared with the MAC group (P = 0.012). Bacteremia occurred less frequently in the RIC group through the entire period (5% vs. 14%; P = 0.044). However, the incidences of cytomegalovirus reactivation and disease, herpes zoster, virus-associated hemorrhagic cystitis, and invasive fungal infection were not different between the two groups. Furthermore, there was no difference in relapse-free survival and IRM between the two conditioning regimens.

CONCLUSION

Careful monitoring and appropriate preventive/therapeutic strategies for infectious complications, comparable to those for allo-SCT recipients with MAC, should also be applied to those with RIC, especially after engraftment.

摘要

背景

在异基因干细胞移植(allo-SCT)中,降低强度预处理(RIC)因产生较少的预处理相关毒性而闻名。然而,RIC是否能降低感染风险和感染相关死亡率(IRM)仍存在争议。

方法

我们回顾性分析了allo-SCT后按时间段和预处理方案强度(RIC [n = 81] 对比清髓性预处理,MAC [n = 150])划分的感染发作情况和IRM。

结果

在整个时间段内,RIC组中任何类型感染的累积发生率较低(72% 对比87%;P = 0.007)。与MAC组相比,RIC组感染的发作延迟(P = 0.012)。在整个时间段内,RIC组菌血症的发生频率较低(5% 对比14%;P = 0.044)。然而,两组之间巨细胞病毒再激活和疾病、带状疱疹、病毒相关性出血性膀胱炎以及侵袭性真菌感染的发生率并无差异。此外,两种预处理方案在无复发生存率和IRM方面没有差异。

结论

对于RIC患者,尤其是在植入后,应像对接受MAC的allo-SCT受者一样,对感染并发症进行仔细监测并采取适当的预防/治疗策略。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验